Monday, October 1, 2012

Evidentialist Atheism


If you traffic in atheistic circles, online or elsewhere, you'll notice that the primary objection lodged against belief in God is the evidential objection i.e. "I believe things based on [usually 'scientific'] evidence (and others ought to as well); in the absence of evidence for some proposition, I withhold (and others ought to withhold) belief in it; there is no evidence for God's existence that I've ever seen; hence I can't justify believing in God (and neither can anyone else)." Not only is this the primary objection, it's virtually becoming the sole objection. There are many weaknesses to this argument, but I just want to examine one of them in this post. Namely this: for someone who adopts this stance, what would count as evidence of the supernatural or of God? And if it turns out there is not any sort of event, fact, datum, or combination of facts that would count as evidence of the supernatural or of God, then how is this stance distinguishable from a priori atheism, rather than a result of a survey of the pertinent evidence? And if it is indistinguishable from a priori atheism, why countenance the objection seriously at all?

If an atheist can give criteria for what would count as evidence for God or the supernatural, and a good reason for adopting whatever particular criterion they choose, then they can be rationally justified in their unbelief if they have never been confronted with the sort of evidence they require. The vast majority of atheists I've encountered  adopt the 'scientific' criterion for belief. That is: they will believe in those things which are deliverances of scientific method and nothing else. Now, this doesn't mean that some atheist somewhere couldn't adopt some other criterion, in which case I would have to address whatever criterion that would be, but in this post I will be content to address the criterion that the vast majority of unbelievers appeal to.

If 'science' is that certain sort of investigation of natural phenomena via a particular systematic method of observation and experiment, then immediately one must ask why this criterion for knowledge should be adopted to answer a question necessarily outside its purview i.e. the question of the existence of the supernatural. Could the supernatural theoretically exist and never be isolated and observed in material phenomena, with conditions necessary for repeatable, controlled lab experiments? Not only could this be the case, but if anything supernatural did exist, then this would necessarily be the case: science as traditionally understood and practiced, could not be performed on said phenomena. So we are left with no sensible, justifiable reason to think that the scientific criterion for knowledge is capable of addressing the question of whether anything supernatural exists. Anyone who demands 'scientific evidence of the unscientific (or a-scientific)' makes a nonsensical demand.

This problem seems to bear itself out practically in my experience with atheists. Ask them what would theoretically constitute scientific evidence for God and most of them will struggle to think of something that would count. Recently, I tried to help them out and posed the following hypothetical: suppose the famous double-slit experiment revealed that, on the sheet behind the slits, the particles arrayed in a pattern that spelled out 'YAHWEH WAS HERE' or 'JESUS CHRIST IS THE ETERNAL LOGOS', rather than dispersing in the way that they actually do. Would this count as extremely strong scientific evidence for belief in God? The immediate reaction was that they would suspect a hoax, so I clarified that the results were repeated and confirmed in numerous independent peer-reviewed experiments and accepted by the scientific community at large as legitimate. "Very powerful aliens could be controlling that reality", "Could be a mass delusion", "Could still be a hoax" etc. came the responses. In other words, even paradigm-shifting evidence of God's existence, literally written into the fabric of existence, would not count as evidence for God or the supernatural. At which point we can properly accuse atheists of this sort of holding to an a priori atheism that isn't the result of insufficient scientific evidence, but which is entirely impervious to scientific evidence of even the most radical sort.

In the case of atheists who hold to the scientific criterion of knowledge as solely legitimate, but who would accept this theoretical sort of evidence as persuasive (and so avoid being properly accused of evidence-independent atheism), there is another problem. Namely, that those atheists don't apply the scientific criterion of knowledge to many things that they hold to be true. An atheist who ate toast for breakfast, for example, will believe that he ate toast for breakfast if you ask him about it that evening, and he will believe it to be so on no other basis than his own memory. No repeatable experiment results, no test of any sort, no peer-review, just his memory. And, of course, it's rational for him to do so as it's a properly basic sort of belief. Same goes for that which we currently apprehend with our senses. There's no scientific way of demonstrating that these constant sources of beliefs are reliable, but the atheist (rationally) cleaves to them nonetheless, and so breaks his own standard for what counts as knowledge.

An atheist who holds to the scientific criterion of knowledge as merely the best, but not exclusive, criterion of knowledge, and who acknowledges some sensible minimum standard for what would count as evidence for God mostly escapes this particular critique but -- lucky for me -- mostly doesn't exist. I'll rationally withhold belief in such a creature until presented with evidence of his existence.

16 comments:

  1. Hi Nathan, wanted to respond to a few of your main points. If you feel I am misrepresenting them let me know.
    1.) By definition scientific evidence could not prove the existence of a god so atheism on the grounds of lack of evidence is a priori atheism.

    It seems to me that, with a lack of evidence and reason, athiesm should be the default position. Atheism does not require a positive belief that there is no god, but only a lack of belief in a god. Only those who make claims like, "there is no god" claim a priori knowledge. As well of those who claim to have knowledge that a god exists.

    2.)Science explains nature so the supernatural is outside of its scope. Expecting evidence for the supernatural is illogical.

    I agree. But just because I accept that there is a possibility that there could be something supernatural, and a process designed to describe nature is unfit to describe the supernatural, does not imply that we should accept the existence of the supernatural and abandon science as a tool for understanding reality.

    3.)Even if there was evidence, atheists wouldn't accept it. Double slit experiment yields particle dispersal that spells out "Yahweh was here". Is it strong evidence for existence of the Christian god? Atheists say no.

    Atheist will not accept this as evidence for the existence of a god because it simply isn't. There are several natural explanations that science would be fit to test. Once these are exhausted and shown to be unfit any supernatural explanations would still be speculation not arrived at through scientific process. Beyond that, even if there is no explanation of something through natural process it is better to assume that it is due to a currently unexplained natural process than to assume it is caused by a supernatural process.

    4.)Atheists hold science to be the only sufficient justification for knowledge.

    I think lots of us accept reason as an acceptable justification for a priori knowledge. Do you have a compelling logical argument for the existence of a god?


    In short, evidential atheism is not necessarily a priori atheism as no a priori knowledge is claimed. Instead, a lack of knowledge is simply being admitted. As long as there is no positive belief that there is no god, your arguments fall apart. There is no reason to justify a lack of belief. However, those who make positive claims like God exists or there is no god do have a responsibility to justify those beliefs if they expect to have any discourse on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathaniel:
      1) Although it's popular to denounce it, you're describing a null starting position re: God, which is agnosticism, not atheism. And also, there's no reason to privilege the null position (agnosticism) over either atheism or theism. Indeed "it seems to [you]" i.e. it's an impressionistic conclusion, not one you've argued for.

      3) This is incoherent. First of all, the phenomenon described *is* natural, not supernatural. My theoretical is that the dispersal pattern naturally spells out those words per the laws of physics, and does so consistently. The question is whether this natural phenomenon would be strong evidence which points to a supernatural reality. And of course it would be. Alternative possible explanations don't make this any less the case because I've said 'evidence for' not 'proof of'. You are unaware of the distinction, it seems.

      4) Yeah, I said this short article doesn't apply to everyone, just a large swath of atheists.

      Delete
  2. 1) You misunderstand agnosticism. It is neither mutually exclusive with atheism nor necessarily a stance on theism. If you do not believe in a deity, you are an atheist. Even if you acknowledge that you don't have knowledge that there is no god.

    3) How would it be good evidence of the supernatural? It would simply be a currently unexplained natural phenomenon. Just like the actual results of the double slit experiments were when they were first observed before wave-particle collapse was understood. It would provide no scientific evidence for the supernatural because it is outside the scope of science; scientific evidence can only exist in reference to a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since the supernatural is outside the scope of science, it can not be a scientific hypothesis or theory. Even when all conceivable natural explanations have been tested and exhausted it could not provide evidence for the supernatural. Reason tells us that adding a whole seemingly unnecessary and indescribable element to the essence of reality makes far more assumptions than assuming it is due to a natural process that is not currently understood. Reason also tells us that less assumptions = more likely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and the result of inductive reasoning without unnecessary assumptions (such as metaphysical materialism) given this datum is that the God of the Bible is the True God and that the supernatural exists. But thank you for admitting that even in the face of radical evidence for God's existence you will equivocate and refuse to accept it and therefore your disbelief is evidence and reality independent, rather than based on those things.

      Delete
    2. "Yes, and the result of inductive reasoning without unnecessary assumptions (such as metaphysical materialism) given this datum is that the God of the Bible is the True God and that the supernatural exists." That sounds strange. How did you come to the conclusion that the Parbrahma of the Vedas in not the "one true God", and the "God of the Bible" is?


      Also, before writing articles on why atheists cannot answer questions about what would comprise evidence for a god, perhaps it would be better if you took more effort to define what the word "god" even means? Let's just look at two alternatives: Is it the god of the various mythologies, including the Biblical ones? Then all the science and archaeology we know so far contradicts the important claims made in these mythologies, and evidence overturning a significant amount of our current scientific knowledge would be required before we can even consider the existence of those gods as a serious question. Is it a deist god? Then, by definition, not much evidence can exist, short of a complete unraveling of the origin on the universe.

      Before you give evidence for something, it is usually a good idea to specify what you are trying to give evidence for.

      Delete
    3. "That sounds strange. How did you come to the conclusion that the Parbrahma of the Vedas in not the "one true God", and the "God of the Bible" is?"

      Uh, did you even read the discussion? Or the original post? Or the context of the sentence which you quoted on responded to? The hypothetical was that the double slit experiment spelled out "YAHWEH WAS HERE" and "JESUS CHRIST IS THE ETERNAL LOGOS". Hence it would be utterly irrational to deduce from this piece of evidence that Parbrahma of the Vedas is the One True God. So yeah, fail less egregiously please.

      And I'm perfectly content with the sophistication of my readership not to have to define the very well understood concept of God whenever the topic is breached. But thanks for the silly recommendation. And, of course, no science or archaeology contradicts the Biblical account of God in the least.

      Delete
  3. Materialism is the best assumption to start with because nearly everything can be explained materialistically. We know that material reality exist at least in a way that is meaningful to us. Since the existence of material reality is already given, adding a separate element to reality is making another assumption.

    Also, that is not a valid inductive conclusion. Why would the conclusion that the god you have interpreted from the christian bible exists be any more likely that "powerful aliens", "mass delusion", something we cannot comprehend currently, or any of the other possibilities. What makes it unlikely that your conclusion would be false?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathaniel, you don't seem to understand what materialism is. It's not that the material exists and can be apprehended by the senses, can be studied etc. Virtually all systems of knowledge hold these things to be true, not just materialism. Materialism is the belief that the material is all there is, and no, there is absolutely no good reason to declare this stance should be the default.

      And of course, it's an absolutely valid inductive conclusion. You're violating your own principle of not needlessly multiplying assumptions one breath after making it. Again, thanks for copping to your utterly a prior and evidence-independent atheism.

      Delete
    2. You did not address any of my criticism. You simply misrepresenting what I said. I will restate it for you: Since the material does exist and it explains nearly everything, there is no reason to assume there is anything else, so materialism should be the default position. You should then need a reason to assume there is more.

      Wrong. How am I needlessly multiplying assumptions? By offering alternative explanation? That does not needlessly multiply assumptions. Each separate explanation comes with it's own, independent, set of assumptions. Please provide the reasoning that demonstrates that, if the particles dispersed in a way that spelled out "Yahweh was here." in the double slit experiments, it would be unlikely that the god you have interpreted from the Christian bible does not exist.

      Delete
  4. If the results of the double slit experiment were as you described, would you continue to have faith in your god?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course... how could it possibly deter me?

      Delete
    2. If it were sufficient evidence you would no longer require faith as a justification for your belief.

      Delete
    3. Anon, this assumes a common but un-Christian understanding of 'faith'. Faith in the Christian sense isn't bare knowledge or belief. You can know someone exists and still not have faith in them. For example, James 2:19 says "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." Clearly the demons have no faith; they know God exists and rebel against him nonetheless. And this is actually the case for all humans, according to Christian teaching. The lack of knowledge or mental assent is not the primary matter of faith. It's the response to the knowledge i.e. taking up one's cross and following Christ.

      Delete
    4. So faith is accepting inherent knowledge in the existence of God and surrendering to his will? Do we also have inherent knowledge of his will?

      Delete
  5. Got a lot out this post. Cleared a few things up for me.

    My thanks. Linked to it on my blog. Hope you don't mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you got something from it, and I'm happy to have it linked. Thanks for reading.

      Delete